Yes, IMHO, it should be the first thing to be considered before deviating from it, and once you deviate you should have good and sound reasons to do so. Otherwise you may end up with just another conjectural deck plan version just as the one FJ came up with.

2. Do you need to invoke an ineffective technicality like overscanning to put the ceiling height issue in the not onscreen rule to be able to claim that it is not onscreen and thus you can change it?

Click to expand...

Fact is that Star Trek was produced for television, not for theaters, and the directors and everybody else involved in this TV production had an understanding of what the audiences with their overscan tube TV sets would actually be able to see and therefore composed the cinematography accordingly.

A good TV set (in the 1960's) would just trim the edges until the "safe action area", a bad TV would just leave you with the "title safe area". So this is about obvious intentions what the DPs and producers expected and wanted us to see.

Example: Did Spock listen to Lokai's speech ("Let That Be...") in Recreation Room "6" or another one? On my overscan tube TV set, I wasn't able to read the "6" when Spock turned around, so this might have been an intentional decision of the DP, in contrast to those scenes where we clearly saw "Recreation Room 6" (e.g. "Mark of Gideon" which has to be another room).

3. Can you still be always accurate (see your 1st restriction) and yet make your results seem credible to the way you think it should work?

Click to expand...

It's about finding a palatable balance and relationship between the two, which I'm trying to accomplish. If you look at my first attempt drafting Deck 5 (yuck!) I moved the outer cabins closer to the center.
However, I ended up with a "deck of corridors" and waste of space which hardly anyone in real life would arrange this way. A corridor has to give access to rooms on both sides of it, if not it should be small corridor at least, IMHO.
Another aspect is the purpose of cabins at the outer hull. During red alert such cabins would be vacated and in case of a hull breach serve as an extra protection against decompression. That's a practicality that should be considered, too.

Why not just simplify all your rules down to these two:
1. I'm going to start with what I see on the screen as a base.
2. I'll change what I need to change to make it fit my vision of how MJ would have built it.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the proposal but that sounds as if I were just trying to recreate something recognizable which is not the mission goal.

The mission goal is still to be as screen accurate as possible and wherever possible stay clear of overdrive rationalizations. At the same time (bearing in mind the budget restrictions) the final deck plans should reflect what Matt Jefferies and the other members of the TOS production intended the ship to look like once all the puzzle-pieces of information have come together. Of course there's plenty of room for different interpretations and I can only assure you that I'm trying my best to come up with an interpretation which I hope Walter Matt Jefferies would have liked and supported (and one that comes close to what he might have had delivered, would he have had the time and energy to do it).

Yes, IMHO, it should be the first thing to be considered before deviating from it, and once you deviate you should have good and sound reasons to do so. Otherwise you may end up with just another conjectural deck plan version just as the one FJ came up with.

Click to expand...

I think it's how you had written that rule in absolutes that caught my attention. Accuracy can't "always" come first if you're willing to deviate from it. I think what you wrote in your restated mission statement "to stay as accurate as possible while reflecting MJ and producer intent" makes far more sense, IMHO.

2. Do you need to invoke an ineffective technicality like overscanning to put the ceiling height issue in the not onscreen rule to be able to claim that it is not onscreen and thus you can change it?

Click to expand...

Fact is that Star Trek was produced for television, not for theaters, and the directors and everybody else involved in this TV production had an understanding of what the audiences with their overscan tube TV sets would actually be able to see and therefore composed the cinematography accordingly.

A good TV set (in the 1960's) would just trim the edges until the "safe action area", a bad TV would just leave you with the "title safe area". So this is about obvious intentions what the DPs and producers expected and wanted us to see.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the camera does show the areas in question that you want to change even with the safe action and title safe areas applied. This line of justification is ineffective and unnecessary.

Since you already state that you're going to reflect what MJ and the production folks intended you should just go with that and say, "I think the ceiling starts where the top of the structural brace ends as that's probably what the production people were thinking." I'd buy into that instead of thinking, "Why is Bob invoking overscan when the problem area is still visible on the screen even with the overscan area accounted for?"

The mission goal is still to be as screen accurate as possible and wherever possible stay clear of overdrive rationalizations. At the same time (bearing in mind the budget restrictions) the final deck plans should reflect what Matt Jefferies and the other members of the TOS production intended the ship to look like once all the puzzle-pieces of information have come together. Of course there's plenty of room for different interpretations and I can only assure you that I'm trying my best to come up with an interpretation which I hope Walter Matt Jefferies would have liked and supported (and one that comes close to what he might have had delivered, would he have had the time and energy to do it).

The problem is that the camera does show the areas in question that you want to change even with the safe action and title safe areas applied. This line of justification is ineffective and unnecessary.

Click to expand...

Then please tell me how the Thermians would interprete a shot like this!

So the Enterprise-D has cooling fans or searchlights sticking out from the conference lounge according to the Thermians?

This just illustrates my issue with the TNG remastering (that compelled me to return to TOS) where a lot of fans lamented that they wanted the "original" 4:3 format but couldn't make up their minds which is the "original" one.

What looks like a production flaw isn't one because the director could rely (as the TOS directors) that the overscan of a 4:3 tube TV set would trim the upper area and maintain the illusion that events took place on a starship - and not on a studio set.

Moreover, since the directors of TOS (and TNG) neither expected nor wanted us to see those expendable areas beyond the safe action area but which you feel should be considered, you are technically speaking relying on "behind-the-scenes" material which you otherwise tend to ignore.

I'm relieved. You are aware that the amount of time we both spent on this technicality discussion could have been better invested to proceed with our distinctive TOS Enterprise projects? Or the actual content of my Deck 6 draft!

The problem is that the camera does show the areas in question that you want to change even with the safe action and title safe areas applied. This line of justification is ineffective and unnecessary.

Click to expand...

Then please tell me how the Thermians would interprete a shot like this!

So the Enterprise-D has cooling fans or searchlights sticking out from the conference lounge according to the Thermians?

Click to expand...

1. From that screenshot you can make some greebles on the exterior to have the same shapes of what is visible. It's no worse than seeing airplane, tank and ship greebles stuck on a scifi ship and thinking what a coincidence that they look familiar.
2. You're biasing those shapes as production equipment because of your background knowledge.
3. I'm glad I'm NOT working on the E-D

What looks like a production flaw isn't one because the director could rely (as the TOS directors) that the overscan of a 4:3 tube TV set would trim the upper area and maintain the illusion that events took place on a starship - and not on a studio set.

Click to expand...

That is different than camera shots in TOS where the "bad areas" are clearly NOT covered up by the overscan areas. If all of these bad spots were covered up then you'd have a point about TOS but unfortunately the filmed episodes used some wide angle lenses that clearly put the bad spots in the shot. If anything, the builders likely foresaw that and built the walls 10' tall and had those cross dividers to cover up the lighting equipment and exposed ceiling.

Moreover, since the directors of TOS (and TNG) neither expected nor wanted us to see those expendable areas beyond the safe action area but which you feel should be considered, you are technically speaking relying on "behind-the-scenes" material which you otherwise tend to ignore.

Click to expand...

Then those cameras should've been aimed down to get them in the overscan area

Since I'm including the whole frame (this Thermian has modern eqipment ) and you're not anymore does that mean you'll go back and review your work to see if the curvature of the sets fall into your expendable zones? That could give you some more straight corridors to work with.

I'm relieved. You are aware that the amount of time we both spent on this technicality discussion could have been better invested to proceed with our distinctive TOS Enterprise projects? Or the actual content of my Deck 6 draft!

Click to expand...

If only our project threads were the only ones we posted on... Still, always good to get clarity on how we interpret the Big-E.

Since I'm including the whole frame (this Thermian has modern eqipment ) and you're not anymore does that mean you'll go back and review your work to see if the curvature of the sets fall into your expendable zones? That could give you some more straight corridors to work with.

Great work on Deck 6. I think I prefer Life Support Control's location at the center of the deck. I also like how you expanded the room in Environmental Engineering and the Day of the Dove lounge.

Click to expand...

Thanks Donny, your feedback really means a lot to me. Yes, LSC in the center makes sense in the inner area/shelter context. Too bad, I will be unable to have two options for this one (unlike McCoy's office from "The Changeling") and be forced to settle for one.

Btw, could you give me a run down on what Deck 7 contains based on screen accuracy and dialogue? I'm assuming you have thought as far ahead to have a general idea.

Click to expand...

Ironically, trying to keep up with your thread I had a tingling sensation today that told me "Do Deck 7 now!" Yes, I have the final layout but still need to put it in a presentable and graphic form.

On the port side we'll have the Season One corridor from "The Naked Time" ("of course" I'm tempted to add) leading to the Engineering Control Room. Although I didn't feel too comfortable with the idea, Medical Ward 2 from Season Two with McCoy's office ("The Deadly Years", "Journey to Babel" etc.) will be accomodated behind the Season One corridor walls (the main reason for that being the red turbo lift door vis-a-vis the exam room!). This one will have the angled-in third bed according to various episodes.

Towards the bow will be the Season One studio set from "The Naked Time". I feel I'll be unable to accomodate this Season One set on the port side where it should belong

Spock is passing "Personnel Records" on his way to the ECR, Lt. Riley is not (on his way to Medical Ward 4)!

I tried to confine all medical wards 4 at least to the starboard side, putting the "Naked Time" ward on the port side would conflict with this approach

The starboard side will accomodate the Medical Ward from "The Way to Eden" and Dr. M'Benga's / the Season Three office. This one will also have the straight wall with the third bed from "Return to Tomorrow".

As for the center of this deck I'll put the upper level of the Computer Core according to The Making of Star Trek. Since its size, shape and diameter is conjectural there should be no problem accomodating the extra "third beds" from the sickbay intensive care areas (funny, I, too considered these areas on Deck 7 to be just that. But I feel this makes good sense to have the intensive care area on a deck where there's less traffic than on Decks 5 and 6 in comparison).

The whole reasoning for this Deck 7 arrangement will hopefully become clearer once it's illustrated and commented with the analysis.

Are there any references to transporter rooms on Deck 7? I've always had it in my head that Deck 7 is considered "The Main Deck", and had a few transporter rooms, a sickbay complex, briefing room, security, computer core, etc. This is probably due to Shane Johnson's refit guide stating so, and Franz Joseph placing these areas on Deck 7 as well (I grew up with both tech manuals always within arm's reach). Now, you know we share a mutual disregard of (most of) FJs work, but is there evidence in the show that this is true, and Deck 7 is in fact "Main Street of the Enterprise"?

I ask because I'd like to group those areas accordingly on my own project, since I am featuring only key areas of key decks. It would be nice to have as much packed into these areas as possible, and not have a bunch of empty space or doors that don't open because they lead to nothing. Deck 7 being "Main Deck" would help in this regard. It would also make sense from a gaming standpoint to have all these locations grouped close together.

Just wondering if you have any more info that would support this theory.

First of all thanks for your input. It helped me to re-evaluate some aspects of my approach. Blssdwlf has opened my eyes regarding the overscan issue (considering how involved I had been last year in the TNG format debate, it's somewhat odd that I did not apply my knowledge in the TOS context), although I presume that's not what he intended.

I also need to re-evaluate my approach to the location of "The Naked Time" sickbay (slept the night over it). As a matter of fact Spock's movement in "Amok Time" was not "Crazy Ivan" but "Confused Vulcan" and although I feel that door signs do not change within the episode, what we see in "The Naked Time" are - as a matter of fact - infected crewmen that perform practical jokes all over the ship, so I think it's not farfetched to assume that some of these did swap door signs all over the ship and therefore "Spock's corridor" to the ECR and Riley's corridor to sickbay could actually be one and the same. Fair enough?

Regarding the onscreen dialogue blssdwlf has mentioned the essentials in the previous post. I'd like to add more evidence:

already in "The Man Trap" audiences could notice (even despite the overscan of their television sets) that the security report from "Deck 5" happened in front of an "astr(o-medicine) w(ard)". This may have been the inpiration for subsequent episodes and directors to locate sickbay on Deck 5.

in "Amok Time" Kirk wanted the reluctant Spock to have himself checked in sickbay and accompanied him to "Deck 5". Obviously he personally wanted to make sure Spock went to sickbay and actually waited until Spock had left the turbo lift (!)

according to "Elaan of Troyius" sickbay is on Deck 5

after Lt. Johnson had been severely wounded by the Klingons in "Day of the Dove", Kirk told the ship's computer to carry them to sickbay. That this "sickbay" cannot possibly be on Deck 7 becomes evident once you check the width of Deck 8 in the cutaway draft I provided several posts ago. The A-frame corridor outside the Crew Lounge is clearly visible in the footage, but a corridor that long can't possibly be on Deck 8. You'd need at least Deck 7 to accomodate its length but then, sickbay would inevitably have to be on Deck 6 or another deck above!

and last not least according to Spock in "Day of the Dove" "the Klingons control deck six and starboard deck seven, while we control all sections above." While this could theoretically be rationalized (overdrive?), I for one would find it somewhat odd that McCoy performed medical surgery on injured crew members in a resistance pocket on Deck 7 surrounded by Klingons, and feel it more reasonable to assume that he did provide medical assistance on Deck 5 above instead!

Summary: While there is plenty of evidence in TOS that sickbay is on Deck 5, there's none whatsoever that it is on Deck 7.

The assumption (and that's essentially all it is after the facts) that Deck 7 is the one (and only?) sickbay location comes from the interior description of the ship in The Making of Star Trek and the subsequent FJ works because he based his work entirely on this description and not on the actual information available from the series, IMO.

If you read the interior description again, you may find that there is a high probability that we are looking at a fatal flaw that has been causing Trekkers considerable headaches for the past decades (and just proves that Gene Roddenberry and Mr. Whitfield totally underestimated the fan interest in the interior layout of the ship. The enormous success of FJ's works is a testimony to their "lack of vision").

As I said earlier, I presume this interior description to have been a working blueprint at the start of the series and before certain premises were actually changed by scriptwriters and directors.
On page 172 Whitfield added a piece of Season Two information (Dr. Daystrom and duotronic computers) which gave the interior description an air of describing the ship's interior at its Season Two condition, but also with the noticable absence of Season Two sets like the Auxiliary Control Room and the Emergency Manual Monitor!

However, "Amok Time" and its Deck 5 suggestion for sickbay had happened before amidst no evidence for any sickbay location on Deck 7, and therefore it stands to reason that Mr. Whitfield simply took the concept sheet for the pilot Enterprise from "Where No Man Has Gone Before" without making a serious effort to upgrade it to reflect all the changes and new sets introduced during Seasons One and Two (and FJ -in a manner of speaking - essentially performed "copy and paste")!

It almost appears Mr. Whitfield only reflected the latest information from the script of "The Ultimate Computer". Not only because of his Daystrom annotation but also because of his (admittedly logical) conclusion that the cabins of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty had to be on Deck 5, because this was the deck where the M-5 computer hadn't switched off life support, and because those senior officers were still present (apparently most if not all of the 20 crew members still on board must have also resided on Deck 5...).

Therefore I suggest to consume the interior description according to The Making of Star Trek (and FJ) with grains of salt. However, not for one second would it occur to me to disregard that description in my treknological research attempt. Since there is no reason not to assume that McCoy's office and the bulk (!) of the medical laboratories is on Deck 7, I shall of course reflect that information accordingly in the final draft for Deck 7 (including the morgue of the ship. To me it appears Deck 7 is the intense care facility, shielded from the curious eyes of the general crew and/or alien ambassadors and the probability that an intense care patient dies on this deck is higher than on the ones above. Coffins could be lowered onto Deck 8 with the exterior hatch for a burial "at sea", though I'm having still some doubts whether its proper to locate the ship's chapel on a deck that is otherwise used for recreation. Alternately Deck 7 would be a good candidate for the chapel, as other crew members might go there and pray for the quick recovery of a fellow crewman being taken care of in the intense care facilities).

Actually, given the many sickbay variations during TOS, I was rather glad to have the space between Decks 5 and 7 available for that. I honestly sympathize with the discomfort of esteemed Trekkers like FalTorPan and GSchnitzer to have that many medical wards (and transporter rooms) aboard the ship, but hope to be able to present a reasonable explanation once I have the opportunity to illustrate and comment on Deck 7 (soon...).

As a matter of fact I originally had wanted today to address the issue of multiple transporter rooms (since we are still "on" Deck 6), but that will now have to wait for later. Good thing is, that you guys just provided me with the opportunity to elaborate on the actual value of Whitfield's interior description, so I'm happy to be done with that part as I also will need to address Whitfield's transporter descriptions, of course. Stay tuned...

Regarding personnel transporters we saw at least 2 distinctively different ones in the series: One with food synthesizer / landing party equipment elevators which did not have the star chart (“Tomorrow Is Yesterday” and “This Side of Paradise”) and the ones from the end of Season Two on with the extra monitoring console and sometimes a viewscreen (distinction only possible in shots revealing the back wall of the corresponding transporter room). Considering the variations of the transporter rooms with the monitoring console there may be more than one of those Season Two / Three types.

The Making of Star Trek doesn’t give us any idea about the cargo transporter, other that interplanet freight is stored in the engineering hull which presumably hinted its location.

Do these look different? Can these also carry living beings?

In “Dagger of the Mind” we saw actual cargo transport in action, but the transporter looked exactly like the personnel one and was quite obviously capable of transporting the stowaway Dr. van Gelder. Working his way up to the Bridge he somehow passed Engineering Deck 14 (there are 16 E-decks), which suggests the cargo transporter to be really down below in the engineering hull, same as the one that brought Mudd and his women aboard (he referred to them as “cargo” but that apparently wasn’t the reason to use such a transporter ).

So there is no reason to assume that he cargo transporter looks any different than the personnel transporter, other than it’s usually used to transport cargo and not people like in “Mudd’s Women” and “Tomorrow Is Yesterday” but those two were rather exceptional cases rescuing people in an emergency situation.

Consequently I had put these on the (close to final) draft for Engineering Deck 14 and believe that these had been the first personnel/cargo transporters on Pike’s Enterprise, respectively transporters 1 and 2, before the crew complement was boosted from 203 to 430 crew members and thus required additional transporters in the saucer hull.

A good and rather inevitable question would naturally be why the evacuation transporters (my latest proposal) for the cabins on Engineering Deck 12 would be “3C” or “3F” in the saucer and not “1P(ort)” and “2S(tarboard)” on E-Deck 14, but considering that 400 crewmen were apparently busy below E-Deck 12 in “Day of the Dove” and that there was noticable traffic on E-Deck 14 in “Dagger of the Mind” I hope that this doesn’t necessarily qualify as rationalization overdrive (although it is admittedly close to one). Oops…I just realize that I killed the two transporter rooms on E-Deck 10 (and now have to find another explanation how they got Nomad to the nearest transporter room).

In another thread we discussed the identical appearance of 6 pad personnel transporters with the only other TOS variety being one with 2 pads seen in “Court Martial” and “Trouble With Tribbles”.

It was suggested that the transporter is such a complicated, delicate and maintenance-intensive device, that for ease of maintenance (difficult enough as it is) these only come in the two aforementioned varieties and because of the amount of maintenance required you always need at least a minimum of two (one to use while the other is off for maintenance purposes), therefore and simply put the “transporter room” mentioned in any episode happens to be one that is currently not shut down for reasons of maintenance but ready for immediate use.

This leaves us with an elephant in the room which is the enigmatic 22 pad personnel emergency transporter mentioned in The Making of Star Trek (and illustrated by FJ) but definitely never seen nor mentioned in the series. “The Trouble With Tribbles” would have been a good opportunity to at least mention it by name (and leave it to our imagination what it might look like) to establish its existence, just as its TAS sequel but that didn’t happen. Thus I have the audacity to ask what is it good for?

To be of practical use, this special transporter most definitely requires an adjacent M Class planet, space station or spaceship to where you can actually beam your personnel, thus the emergency has to be a “favorable” one, despite that there are already other personnel transporters on the ship and this type would just do the same job, only somewhat faster, yet presumably require regular and time-intensive maintenance just to be prepared for such an eventuality.

But in several episodes where the Enterprise was in severe danger of burning up in the atmosphere of an M Class planet, we did not become once aware of any preparations to save a large part of the crew by beaming it down to a planet capable of sustaining human and Vulcan life.
The only life saving rescue efforts we became aware of was the separation of the saucer hull from the warp nacelles and probably the engineering hull in “The Apple” and “The Savage Curtain”.

Thus I’m inclined to consider the 22 pad emergency transporter as a fancy idea they had at the beginning of the series, but one they didn’t really pursue and which therefore became somewhat obsolete and therefore also didn’t have a comeback in either the movies or spin-off series. But I’m open to listen to suggestions to the contrary.

With regard to the 22-man evac transporters, I'm in favor of them. I suggest that the actual use of them is very power intensive and, when you're trying to pull your ship out of a crash through an atmosphere, you want as much power as possible feeding your shields and engines. In "The Apple" Kirk was ordering Scotty to "crack out of there with the main section" to get away from the planet with Vaal, quite the opposite strategy than beaming the entire crew down. In "The Savage Curtain" the surface of the planet wasn't hospitable, except for the patch of ground the Excalbians made habitable for purpose of their trial pitching Human conceits of Good and Evil against each other. So, evacuating the crew to the surface of the planet in this case is also a bad move.

In "This Side of Paradise" the drugged up crew is mutinying and evacuating the ship. Though we see one line of persons out the door of one transporter room, who's to say that the other 6-man units and the 22-man units weren't also being used? In "The Doomsday Machine" Decker claims that he had to beam down his crew to the fourth planet. It doesn't seem like this took a very long time to do (it does seem to me that Decker is regretting a rash and hurried decision... YMMV) so, though there is no specific mention of 22-man transporters, I posit that it could stand as circumstantial evidence to support their existence.

I'm so in favor of the idea, that I'm including them on my own deck plans project. Here's my design for them... which departs a lot from the FJ approach, but i think this is more in line with the other transporter tech we see as it has the surrounding chamber like most other transporters tend to have and FJ omitted.

How I have this set up, the corridor basically open directly onto the Evac transporter area. The operator's console is elevated a bit to make sure the operator can see what's going on with everyone. The outer wall is lined with cabinets that store emergency gear. Both sides have stairs where people can come up from the deck below. The area is open so there's plenty of room to get people staged up. Anyhow, this is just my take on it. I'm not sure how it would fit into your "screen-only" vision.

^^ Yes, I was thinking the same. This would definitely add meaning to such a transporter, IMHO. However its location would seem most suited in the engineering hull, next to the cargo containers.

What I like about Albertese's approach is that in real life, i.e. for the TOS production, they probably would have tried to incorporate parts of he studio set transporter platform, but for a convincing presentation that would have most likely required the construction of a whole new set. One that takes up studio space and could have probably only be used for a few - if any - episodes.

Considering how the walls of the 2 pad personnel transporters looked, I wouldn't be surprised had they recycled this background wall for such a transporter.

Bob

P.S.

Please disregard my question from post 251. The issue whether the chapel should be on Deck 7 or 8 has just been settled by the limited width of Deck 8 (should have noticed this earlier)
And I think I can explain what the room was Chekov and Irina were seeking some privacy in "The Way to Eden". Quite some nice symbolism happening in this scene and room, which I will outline once the Deck 7 illustration is done.

Made a final check (5 thru 7) and realized that Deck 5 wasn’t as final as I had hoped it to be.

The problem with “The Naked Time” A-frame corridor scenes is quite simply that the corridor to “Medical Ward 4” cannot be on Deck 7 nor on Deck 6 and apparently has to be on Deck 5 between “3C” and “3F” (funny, I pulled a “reconstruction rationalization” card on this one to explain the change of the corridor between “3C” and “3B” and between “Space Seed” and “Journey to Babel” but didn’t realize that the removal of the turbo lift in the corridor would still leave the extra turbo lift seen in NT but in “Scotty’s bedroom” according to the currently published Deck 5 draft).

As a consequence of this update

Scotty’s cabin has to be elsewhere on Deck 5 (according to “The Ultimate Computer”)

The Season One sickbay will perfectly align with the Season One sickbays below on Deck 6 and 7

Medical Ward 4 Season One (with the medical monitor over the exam table) was featured in “The Man Trap”, “The Naked Time” and “Space Seed” (all scenes) and is on Deck 5

Medical Ward 1 Season One (without the monitor over the exam table) is not on Deck 5 but on Deck 7 (and this also seems more compliant with the intentions in the beginning to have sickbay on Deck 7 only).

Scene from "The Man Trap" makes sense: Kirk is passing end of corridor (near engine room set) and arrives counter-clockwise at the door to the medical exam room

after studying your deck 6 draft, I really like it a lot - like most of your previous deck plans BTW. OUTSTANDING work

Regarding the placement of LSC, I think the center is a good spot: For one it makes sense in-universe to place this important (control) room at the center of the main deck, since you have nearly equal distances to almost anywhere within the saucer. In case of systems failures you´d get anywhere in a short time. Maybe you´d like to locate a turbolift station next to it, if the visual evidence in the episodes "allow" that - it would further shorten "response time" in case of emergencies.

One thing that does look a bit odd on this deck is the "kink" in the turbo shaft at 9 o´clock. I´m sure you didn´t do this for the fun of it, but it may be worth a look if you can´t straighten this out

As to the (deck 7) question of a 22 person transporter I´m honestly a bit torn: in-universe it would probably make sense to have one or two of these. However, from what´s in the episodes there´s not enough evidence to really justify its existence, IMHO.
The line of waiting crewmen in This Side of Paradise doesn´t make much sense if there were a 22 person transporter on board. Wouldn´t everyone rather go to the big transporters, where waiting time would be much shorter? To me this scene always conveyed the feeling, that this transporter room was the only way off the ship.
And I wouldn´t put too much emphasis on what Matt Decker said: for one he wasn´t really "working on all thrusters" when talking to Kirk & Co. And even with a 22 person transporter, he´d have to complete 20 beam-downs to get everyone off the ship - still plenty of time to think things over.

Finally, even in-universe I´m getting second thoughts: there are (apparently) a number of the 6 person transporters scattered throughout the ship - easily accessible to everyone, no matter where they are. In case of an evacuation I´d rather use multiple smaller transporters, than one or two big ones, since hundreds of people would suddenly have to hurry to one location (could the turbolift network even handle all that "traffic"?). In the time it would take everyone to get to the big transporter, a good number of them could already have beamed out using the regular transporters. So a lot of people would probably do just that, I certainly would! Then why put in an extra big (and extra high maintenance) unit, that will hardly ever be used? And if the evacuation protocols would rely on the 22 person transporter, what if it doesn´t work when it´s needed - transporters have been known to break at the most inopportune moments

Having said all that, I very much like the design of a possible 22 person transporter suggested by Albertese, as well as your (Bob´s) idea of using the back wall from Court Martial there.

One last thought that I´ve had for a while now: with so much space already occupied on the saucer decks with the "visuals" from the episodes, how much room is there left in the outer areas of these decks? Specifically, is there still enough room to fit in quarters for 430 people?

Hi Bob, after studying your deck 6 draft, I really like it a lot - like most of your previous deck plans BTW. OUTSTANDING work

Click to expand...

Thank you very much, it's always good to see the amount of work (which is 90% of the time figuring out how the corridor elements from the various episodes could or should connect to one another and remain screen-accurate) appreciated.

It's also good to see you and Donny prefer LSC in the center. Ironically I just figured out, I can't really put it near the upper level of the Engineering Control Room because I need a stairway instead of the cabin still illustrated to get Spock down from Deck 5 to the Briefing Room 2 on Deck 6 in "The Naked Time".

Add to this (e.g. ST III) that the impulse engineering section is a tempting target for an adversary and you probably shouldn't locate LSC in this area of the ship.

One thing that does look a bit odd on this deck is the "kink" in the turbo shaft at 9 o´clock. I´m sure you didn´t do this for the fun of it, but it may be worth a look if you can´t straighten this out

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right and will probably like Deck 7 where I already straightened the "kink". Of course, we do not only have the main line in the saucer but according to the TOS Bridge schematic there's one in the neck dorsal as well and eventually the diagonal turbo shaft and the main line between the saucer and the engineering hull would otherwise collide, so it's probably best to have main line and main turbo shaft run parallel (most definitely in the neck dorsal).

However, given the amount of space Matt Jefferies allocated between the port and starboard impulse engine rooms, I think he intended to have two turbo shafts there (on Deck 6) that are parallel to one another. Considering the rather long ride through the neck dorsal, one location where two turbo lift cars can pass one another seems mandatory.

The line of waiting crewmen in This Side of Paradise doesn´t make much sense if there were a 22 person transporter on board. Wouldn´t everyone rather go to the big transporters, where waiting time would be much shorter? To me this scene always conveyed the feeling, that this transporter room was the only way off the ship.

Click to expand...

The episode didn't exactly feature an emergency and instead everyone like Lt. Leslie was extremely drugged and relaxed. They were not in a hurry to leave the ship.

However, The Making of Star Trek hints, IMHO, that using the 22 person transporter involves some risk (pattern loss?!).

I have difficulties imagine a crew member voluntarily stepping into such a transporter chamber, knowing that the regular ones are available, too ("rank hath its privileges"?). Definitely not Dr. McCoy who probably carries a ticket and seat reservation for the shuttlecraft in his medical pouch, just to be prepared for such an emergency.

But this again would probably imply that the 22 personnel evac transporter probably has to be somewhere near the cargo holds.
Given the choice of loosing precious time to get to the other transporters or giving this one a try, I'd probably rather take the risk and a ride in the 22 evac / cargo transporter.

One last thought that I´ve had for a while now: with so much space already occupied on the saucer decks with the "visuals" from the episodes, how much room is there left in the outer areas of these decks? Specifically, is there still enough room to fit in quarters for 430 people?

Click to expand...

I admit that I haven't thought that far, yet. This is another case where we have to ask whether we do need to take The Making of Star Trek literally and terminal.

On Deck 4 I considered a dormitory for junior officers (though definitely secured in their bunk beds, contrary to this stupid scene at the beginning of ST VI aboard Excelsior - if Nick Meyer really wanted to go full thrust with the "Hornblower Effect" he should have used hammocks!) and regarding the other crew cabins we might have larger rooms with three, four or five beds.

Thus far I've merely hinted such cabins in an experimental fashion by tinkering with enlarging the standard cabin studio set. Preferrably there should be two standard proposals, one multi-bed cabin facing the center of the deck (briefing room set redress?), one type of cabin that's behind the standard seen cabin set and is wider (and, of course, features the support beams of the briefing room set as a logical continuation along the radius of these beams). Should be fun to illustrate that.

The line of waiting crewmen in This Side of Paradise doesn´t make much sense if there were a 22 person transporter on board. Wouldn´t everyone rather go to the big transporters, where waiting time would be much shorter? To me this scene always conveyed the feeling, that this transporter room was the only way off the ship.

Click to expand...

The episode didn't exactly feature an emergency and instead everyone like Lt. Leslie was extremely drugged and relaxed. They were not in a hurry to leave the ship.

On Deck 4 I considered a dormitory for junior officers (though definitely secured in their bunk beds, contrary to this stupid scene at the beginning of ST VI aboard Excelsior - if Nick Meyer really wanted to go full thrust with the "Hornblower Effect" he should have used hammocks!) and regarding the other crew cabins we might have larger rooms with three, four or five beds.

Click to expand...

Well to be honest I´m not a big fan of shared cabins, especially for three or more people.
Again, consider the psychological aspect: Away from earth for years at a time, with a "real" community aboard, along with relationships and everything connected with that; illnesses, emotional problems of all sorts - personally I´d loathe the prospect of committing to all that that without a "home away from home", a cabin just for myself, where I answer to no one and can be by myself whenever I want. And the idea to reserve this privilege to the senior officers seems a tad too militaristic to me.
Comparing to real life navy ships, these are filled with soldiers, not explorers and scientists, and are "just" sailing for a few months at a time, still relatively close to home.
As for screen-proof: what comes to mind is Ensign Garrovicks spacious 1-person cabin in Obsession.

Personally I´d loathe the prospect of committing to all that that without a "home away from home", a cabin just for myself, where I answer to no one and can be by myself whenever I want. And the idea to reserve this privilege to the senior officers seems a tad too militaristic to me. ...
As for screen-proof: what comes to mind is Ensign Garrovicks spacious 1-person cabin in Obsession.

Click to expand...

But we've seen colonist dwellings like in "The Deadly Years" which suggest rather spartanic living conditions / expectations, IMHO.

Regarding "cabin 341" we never saw the other half of the cabin or its possible (and conjectural) extension, just Garrovick's bed in the part of the set where Captain Kirk usually has his desk.
The wardrobe cylinder definitely has two compartments, therefore two crewmen would have one individual compartment each.

And I'm also unable to see the need of a desk and computer in every two bed cabin for the crew. During work shifts or during sleeping time, this area will never be used and thus would constitute a waste of precious space.

I'm sure there are many public places aboard the ship (like the rec room in "The Trouble With Tribbles" where Scotty read his infamous technical journal with the Mark IX/01 primary phaser article) where the crew can use computers to check mail or do research or read UFP Today and there are probably enough rooms to allow for privacy.

Unlike older submarines, crew members no longer have to share beds depending on their work shifts, but they have plenty of rooms they can use and share.

I think TOS might even be a better concept than TNG, where you have characters like Lt. Barclay that are actually able to isolate themselves from the rest of the crew and live in holodeck fantasies instead.

In TOS the crew has to interact and in a broader sense I feel this to be a good thing. According to McCoy in "Arena" (and there was another one if I recall correctly) "rank hath its privileges" and I believe that definitely refers to have your own private cabin but something that needs to be earned.

At the end of the day, and assuming Kirk is correct with his "430" people statement, these have to be accomodated according to the space that's left on the Enterprise. I'm already curious myself how this turns out.